[UPDATED]
The criminal investigator handling the Videogate case has concluded that the evidence gathered so far does not establish any breach of the Criminal Code by the Cypriots who appeared in the leaked footage. Andreas Paschalidis submitted his report to the Attorney General on Friday, 17 July, a lengthy document that lays out findings, conclusions and recommendations drawn from the extensive body of testimony collected with the help of police.
The report's central finding is that the footage made public on 8 January 2026 was not authentic but had been edited, which the investigator says renders it not only the product of unconstitutional conduct and therefore inadmissible as evidence, but also of minimal, if any, evidentiary value. Three Cypriots feature in the edited clips, two of them known for their active involvement in the country's political life and the third for his business activities.
The genuine recording, which the report notes is itself not free of the elements that critically affect the evidentiary weight of the edited version, runs to roughly 26 hours and features other current and former figures from Cypriot political and business life beyond the three seen in the January footage. It was secured through the intervention of the Law Office's leadership, with the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General granting limited immunity, under strict conditions and with the investigator's agreement, to those involved in producing, recording or releasing the material, covering only offences arising from those specific acts, including potential breaches of data protection law.
A foreign operation aimed at the state, investigators conclude
Responsibility for producing the video lies with a private company of non-Cypriot ownership registered abroad, whose identity investigators have established. The company is said to operate a global information-gathering business in exchange for substantial payment, maintaining agents in numerous countries, and non-Cypriot agents working for the company were deployed to produce the footage.
The investigation concludes that the operation appears designed to damage the Republic of Cyprus rather than any private interest. Investigators point to the timing, the doctored video surfaced a day before Cyprus took over the presidency of the Council of the European Union, and to features they say match a campaign run by a specific country since 2021 targeting EU member states, while not ruling out another state hostile to Cyprus. They also note that the protagonists were given differing scenarios regarding investment in Cyprus that do not appear consistent with the company's own account of its client's motives. Taken together, the report concludes that the video constitutes a form of hybrid attack against the Cypriot state.
Five specific allegations investigated and dismissed
The original recording raised five separate issues that investigators examined in depth. The first concerned claims that a Russian oligarch had been kept off the European Union's sanctions list through improper government interference, an allegation made by one of the Cypriot participants that also touched senior government officials; the inquiry found no wrongdoing and concluded the Cypriot side had acted lawfully throughout. The second involved a construction project in the Limassol district allegedly linked to a well known Limassol family and claims of favourable treatment obtained improperly, claims the named participant declined to elaborate on when asked; investigators found the allegations baseless and established that no family member bearing the name given in the footage existed. The third concerned cash contributions made during the presidential campaigns of the three leading candidates, Nicos Christodoulides, Andreas Mavroyiannis and Neophytou Averof, a claim raised prominently by two of the Cypriot participants; here too, no wrongdoing was found despite persistent suggestions to the contrary from at least one of them. The fourth concerned lobbying activity by the Cypriot participants, on which the Independent Authority Against Corruption was consulted and submitted a detailed report finding nothing objectionable. The fifth concerned the fund of the Independent Social Support Body, managed by the First Lady, which the footage suggested could serve as an easy and safe conduit for money exchanged for suspect favours; investigators obtained the Audit Office's report on the fund's operation and donor verification process along with its donor register, and concluded the allegations did not hold up.
Open questions on the client's identity
The report notes that three of the Cypriot participants signed confidentiality and service agreements with the purported investors, under which two of them received financial benefits. While investigators succeeded in tracing the authentic recording, identifying the production company and the agents it used, and establishing the full content of the interviews, they have not been able to determine the identity of the client who commissioned the video. Paschalidis has recommended the investigation continue on this specific point, a recommendation that has been accepted, extending his mandate to 31 December 2026.
Although no Criminal Code breach was found, the investigator and the police team examined whether the participants' conduct, including their statements, assurances and promises, could fall foul of the Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, ratified in Cyprus under Law 23(III)/2000, and have expressed a number of reservations on that question.
The report's overall assessment of what was said on camera is blunt: investigators concluded the remarks made by some of the Cypriot participants amounted to little more than "empty talk and bluster" intended to build up their own image and secure personal financial gain, which some had already begun to receive. When invited to respond to these findings, only one of the participants did so, confirming the investigator's assessment; the others declined to comment.
Read the full announcement below:
ANNOUNCEMENT
The Criminal Investigator submitted his report to the Attorney General on 17/07/2026 in the well-known “Video Gate” case.
It is a lengthy document in which the Criminal Investigator, with reference to details contained in the extensive body of evidence that, with the cooperation of the Police, has been obtained to date, makes observations and findings, draws conclusions and submits recommendations.
Specifically, based on the current state of affairs as shaped by the evidence secured to date:
1)
The footage that came to light on 08/01/2026 is not authentic but is the product of editing and manipulation and, consequently, apart from constituting the product of unconstitutional acts and therefore inadmissible evidence, it is of negligible, if any, evidential value.
Three persons from the Cypriot side feature prominently in that footage, two of whom are known for their active involvement in the country’s political affairs, while the third is known for his activities in the business sector.
2)
The authentic video, which it should be noted is not free from all those elements that critically affect the evidential value of the edited video, is approximately 26 hours long. In it, apart from the three persons who feature prominently in the edited footage of 8 January 2026, other personalities from the country’s political and business life, both present and past, also feature prominently on the Cypriot side.
3)
The authentic video was secured through the intervention of the heads of the Law Office, namely the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General, after immunity was granted, with the agreement of the Criminal Investigator and for reasons of public interest, under strict and express conditions, to those:
“...who participated in the production (audio recording and/or video recording), as well as the publication of the ... video released on 08.01.2026 and of all the audiovisual material delivered, as well as to any other persons who participated in any other manner in the preparation and/or organization and/or other actions aimed at the production of the audiovisual material, including any associates, employees or officers of the clients ... exclusively in relation to offences arising from the above actions, including offences that may arise under the Personal Data Protection Law.”
4)
Responsibility for the production/creation of the video lies with a private company, not of Cypriot interests, registered abroad, whose name and other details are known to the investigators. According to the evidence, the company operates worldwide in the field of intelligence gathering and information services in return for substantial fees. For this purpose, it maintains/employs agents in numerous countries.
In this particular case, agents of the company, who were not Cypriots, were deployed for the creation/production of the video, and their identities have also been obtained by the investigators.
5)
The apparent aim of the production/creation of the video was to harm the Republic of Cyprus rather than private interests.
In this regard, among other things, attention is drawn to the fact that one day before the publication of the edited video, Cyprus had assumed the Presidency of the European Council; to the fact that the posting of the edited video on 08/01/2026 bore all the characteristics of a specific campaign originating from a particular country, which began in 2021 with the aim, among other things, of targeting Member States of the European Union, without excluding another country hostile to Cyprus; and to the fact that the individuals featured were given different scenarios relating to investments in Cyprus which, when assessed, do not appear, at least at this stage, to be consistent with the company’s position regarding the motives of its client.
In short, as matters currently stand, the conclusion is justified that the video constitutes a form of hybrid attack aimed at harming the Cypriot State.
6)
The study of the authentic video gave rise to the following issues (7(a)-7(e)), which, having been deemed to require investigation, were investigated thoroughly and in depth, leading to findings and conclusions.
7)
(a) Non-inclusion of a specific Russian oligarch on the European Union sanctions list
References made by one of the Cypriot protagonists regarding improper interventions by the Government, including possibly his own involvement, were investigated thoroughly.
The matter was investigated in depth, with the investigations extending to senior government officials, without anything improper being uncovered. On the contrary, what emerged was that the Cypriot side acted entirely lawfully at all material times.
(b) Development project in Limassol District by a specific member of a well-known Limassol family
This issue was brought to the forefront through references/claims made by one of the Cypriot protagonists in the authentic video. These concerned alleged favourable treatment of a member of that family, whom he specifically named, and the obtaining of an advantage through improper means and/or under circumstances tainted by corruption.
When the specific Cypriot “protagonist” was asked to comment on these references/claims, he refused to do so.
Nevertheless, the investigators proceeded with an in-depth investigation of the matter.
Not only was it proven that such claims were unfounded and baseless, but it was also established that in the only instance identified involving a development project linked to that family, the decisions of the respective administrations were beyond reproach and free from any impropriety. Furthermore, no member of that family bearing the specific name mentioned existed.
(c) Cash contributions made during the presidential election campaign of the three main candidates (N. Christodoulides, A. Mavroyiannis and A. Averof)
This was an issue that “featured” prominently during the interviews of two of the Cypriot “protagonists” and therefore could not be ignored, given that the manner in which it was presented left no doubt that it was portrayed as being tainted by corruption.
In this area as well, despite persistent claims to the contrary, at least on the part of one of the two individuals, investigations uncovered nothing improper, let alone corruption.
(d) Lobbying issues
This aspect of the case was also investigated thoroughly.
The conduct of the Cypriot protagonists was examined. As part of the investigations, the opinion of the Independent Authority Against Corruption was sought. The Authority expressed its position through a detailed report from which nothing improper emerged.
(e) Independent Social Support Body Fund
The need to investigate this aspect of the case arose from objectionable references portraying the Fund, which was managed by the First Lady, as an “easy and safe” channel through which money could be directed in exchange for “suspicious” benefits.
Among the actions taken by the Criminal Investigator in cooperation with the Police was the securing of the Audit Office report, which includes findings concerning, among other matters, the Fund’s mode of operation and the method used to match donors with contributions.
A Donors Register was also obtained, the examination of which, together with the remainder of the investigation, revealed the baseless nature of the alleged “improper” claims.
8)
Various agreements (confidentiality and service agreements) were signed between three of the Cypriot protagonists and the purported investors, pursuant to which two of those Cypriot protagonists derived financial benefits.
9)
The evidence obtained to date has made it possible to identify the authentic video, reveal the identity of the producer/creator of the video and the persons/agents used, and establish the full content of the interviews.
However, it has not been possible to identify the client of the company that produced/created the video.
It is evident that revealing the identity of the company’s client would shed light on the mystery surrounding this aspect of the case and, in particular, would lead to the full disclosure of the client’s objectives and motives.
For this reason, a recommendation was submitted that investigations into this aspect of the case continue. This recommendation was accepted, resulting in the extension of the Criminal Investigator’s mandate until 31/12/2026.
10)
The evidence obtained to date does not disclose any violation of the Criminal Code by any of the Cypriot “protagonists” involved.
Nevertheless, the Criminal Investigator and the Police investigative team considered whether violations of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Ratification) Law 23(III)/2000 might arise from the actions, representations, promises, statements and overall conduct of those involved.
However, regarding this issue, the Criminal Investigator and the Police investigative team have expressed a number of reservations.
11)
It is the finding of the Criminal Investigator and the team of police investigators that what is heard in the video being said by some of the Cypriot protagonists amounts to nothing more than empty talk and boastful exaggerations intended to create an impression about themselves for the purpose of obtaining personal financial gain, which some of them had already begun to receive.
Attention is drawn to the fact that when they were asked to comment on these references/claims, only one responded positively, and he confirmed this specific finding of the Criminal Investigator. The others refused to comment and/or state a position.
Nicosia, 20 July 2026
ANDREAS PASCHALIDES
Criminal Investigator
